Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...696229889?s=19

Sanders once again showing how much better he is on foreign policy relative to the rest of the field.

https://abcnews.go.com/International...rales-66920507

Except the military had no involvement beyond issuing a statement supporting his resignation. There was no show of force, violence, or movement from them to support a "coup".

The police ended up supporting the protesters, but by the looks of it that was in direct response to Morales violating Bolivian law regarding elections.

He's not showing anyone how anything is done. The military didn't "intervene" or engage in violence.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://abcnews.go.com/International...rales-66920507

Except the military had no involvement beyond issuing a statement supporting his resignation. There was no show of force, violence, or movement from them to support a "coup".

The police ended up supporting the protesters, but by the looks of it that was in direct response to Morales violating Bolivian law regarding elections.

He's not showing anyone how anything is done. The military didn't "intervene" or engage in violence.

Yeah, Morales just resigned after the military told him too, i'm sure they implied nothing with it.

[Edge-]

Yeah, Morales just resigned after the military told him too, i'm sure they implied nothing with it.

They asked him to.

After what appears to be pretty mass-protests/unrest that was even joined by the police.

Not seeing where they even hinted at a use of force or a threat if he didn't. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.

[kaelleria]

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...696229889?s=19

Sanders once again showing how much better he is on foreign policy relative to the rest of the field.

Um... What?

Bolivia is a complete shitshow right now.

Do you actually know what's been going on in Bolivia or are you just parroting Bernie?

The US, the EU and the UN all think Morales commited fraud in his most recent election.

[PACOX]

Gabbard demands that Hilary apologize to her. Oh and she demands Hilary go on an apology tour.



Hilary Clinton is the reason why Gabbard struggles to meet her polling quotas of 3%

/s

[Ghostpanther]

Gabbard demands that Hilary apologize to her. Oh and she demands Hilary go on an apology tour.



Hilary Clinton is the reason why Gabbard struggles to meet her polling quotas of 3%

/s

Lol! The only thing I remember Hillary apologizing for was her sort of apology for saying " half of Trump supporters are deplorables."

Tulsi is done. She should drop out and throw her support to another candidate.

[Fahrenheit]

Lol! The only thing I remember Hillary apologizing for was her sort of apology for saying " half of Trump supporters are deplorables."

She shouldn't have apologized, it's probably more than half his supporters. I personally know 6 people that voted for him, My father and mother, my father-in-law, and two of my brother-in-laws and one of their wives. Excluding my mother, who is apolitical and just voted for Trump to appease my father, most of them are some of the worst people I know. You know the type, posting conservative bullshit and/or anti-vax garbage on facebook, sending gif memes of Trump fucking Hillary during the 2016 election, saying racist shit all the time, telling me and my sister to never come home with a nigger during our childhoods, that type of shit.

[Somewhatconcerned]

She shouldn't have apologized, it's probably more than half his supporters. I personally know 6 people that voted for him, My father and mother, my father-in-law, and two of my brother-in-laws and one of their wives. Excluding my mother, who is apolitical and just voted for Trump to appease my father, most of them are some of the worst people I know. You know the type, posting conservative bullshit and/or anti-vax garbage on facebook, sending gif memes of Trump fucking Hillary during the 2016 election, saying racist shit all the time, telling me and my sister to never come home with a nigger during our childhoods, that type of shit.

But economic anxiety.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that's the case at all. But a diverse team should absolutely be a consideration from the outset. I think you're ascribing sinister, exclusionary motives where there aren't any

C'mon man, dont take away his victim card.

[Endus]

Gabbard demands that Hilary apologize to her. Oh and she demands Hilary go on an apology tour.

Hilary Clinton is the reason why Gabbard struggles to meet her polling quotas of 3%
/s

She's such a ridiculous fucking buffoon.

She's demanding an apology and retraction like this because she knows she doesn't have any kind of case for an actual defamation lawsuit.

If Hillary responds, at all, it should be in the form of a tweet, saying "nah". It doesn't deserve more than that.

Also, for the sake of making the point, Gabbard wouldn't have to know she was being groomed by Russians to be groomed by Russians. If they were manipulating her without her knowledge, she'd still be an asset. Frankly, this childish tantrum speaks to her being such an asset, not a defense against the implication.

She shouldn't have apologized, it's probably more than half his supporter

I've said it pretty much ever since that blew up; she said (to paraphrase) "half of his voters are deplorables". And in responding to that, every single person assumed she meant them, personally; that they were in that "deplorable" half. Meaning they were essentially admitting that they were racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, that one of those descriptors (at least) was accurate.

They definitely weren't in the half that weren't those things, you see. Which means every one of them was, in protesting it as a direct insult, admitting that they were some flavor of bigot and deserved the slam.

[Elegiac]

So, strangely enough, guess who is currently leading in Iowa according to a new poll?

Pete Buttigieg, whose presidential campaign has been steadily gaining ground in Iowa over recent weeks, now sits narrowly atop the 2020 Democratic field in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, according to a new survey.

A Monmouth University poll published Tuesday shows that the South Bend, Ind., mayor is the first choice of 22 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers — outrunning all other rivals in Iowa for the party’s nomination to challenge President Donald Trump.

Former Vice President Joe Biden ranks in second place with 19 percent support, followed closely by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts with 18 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont with 13 percent.

For those who haven't been following the primary, Buttigieg started out his campaign out in the more progressive track but quickly switched tack to try and capture more centrist votes once Medicare for All became a divisive issue despite previously supporting it - and seems to have managed to cement himself as the young darling of the Democratic elite, drawing significantly more donor support than Biden.

Why does this matter? Well, it matters because Biden now has an actual competitor in the centrist lane who is ideologically little different (as far as we know, Buttigieg doesn't actually have an ideology) but lacking in Biden's specific set of political baggage - Mayor Pete doesn't have his age, an anachronistic political tenure, nor conspiracy theories about Burisma impeding him. These are draws which have actually started to pull certain voters from Biden.

I say 'certain' voters, because while Buttigieg may be marketable in the Midwest or to coastal donors, he has an absolutely abysmal relationship with black voters due to his handling of law enforcement in South Bend. Barring some sort of unlikely turnaround, this alone is enough to ensure he won't get the nomination.

In terms of balancing the ledger, this may ultimately do more to hurt centrist chances.

[Shadowferal]

As if 2016 wasn't already a good reason to question polls.

[Edge-]

As if 2016 wasn't already a good reason to question polls.

Why was it? People (including media) not looking at polls and understanding them doesn't mean they're untrustworthy.

The bigger problem comes when conflating national polling data with election results, as the two don't always line up given the nature of the handful of battleground states. IIRC, state-level polling was far more accurate, folks just weren't paying close enough attention to it and were more focused on national polling.

For Buttigieg, if he's focusing more of his efforts into Iowa that helps explain things. Also that Iowa isn't really representative of the country and Democratic base writ-large, so isn't really a good indicator of anything other than what Iowan's want. It's a largely homogeneous state with 90% white population.

[Elegiac]

Why was it? People (including media) not looking at polls and understanding them doesn't mean they're untrustworthy.

The bigger problem comes when conflating national polling data with election results, as the two don't always line up given the nature of the handful of battleground states. IIRC, state-level polling was far more accurate, folks just weren't paying close enough attention to it and were more focused on national polling.

For Buttigieg, if he's focusing more of his efforts into Iowa that helps explain things. Also that Iowa isn't really representative of the country and Democratic base writ-large, so isn't really a good indicator of anything other than what Iowan's want. It's a largely homogeneous state with 90% white population.

Very much this. The principle reason I brought it up was to reiterate a point made earlier in the thread that due to how sectional the party has become with the resurgence of the progressive wing, traditional metrics for candidacy need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Like, for example, Iowa "deciding" the Democratic candidate by virtue of having an early caucus. It can be a useful test to see which candidates have momentum - but this really just confirms what we already knew about who the big four of the current crop are - Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. What is novel is Buttigieg starting to make headway into Biden's lane.

[Orbitus]

Lol! The only thing I remember Hillary apologizing for was her sort of apology for saying " half of Trump supporters are deplorables."

Tulsi is done. She should drop out and throw her support to another candidate.

She wasn't wrong, but she was estimating really low, it is closer to 95% now.

[Flarelaine]

For Buttigieg, if he's focusing more of his efforts into Iowa that helps explain things. Also that Iowa isn't really representative of the country and Democratic base writ-large, so isn't really a good indicator of anything other than what Iowan's want. It's a largely homogeneous state with 90% white population.

Also Buttigieg is still from the Corn Belt, so he's the closest Iowa has to a homegrown candidate.

[Skroe]

The Warren stall is real.

[Kaleredar]

So, strangely enough, guess who is currently leading in Iowa according to a new poll?



For those who haven't been following the primary, Buttigieg started out his campaign out in the more progressive track but quickly switched tack to try and capture more centrist votes once Medicare for All became a divisive issue despite previously supporting it - and seems to have managed to cement himself as the young darling of the Democratic elite, drawing significantly more donor support than Biden.

Why does this matter? Well, it matters because Biden now has an actual competitor in the centrist lane who is ideologically little different (as far as we know, Buttigieg doesn't actually have an ideology) but lacking in Biden's specific set of political baggage - Mayor Pete doesn't have his age, an anachronistic political tenure, nor conspiracy theories about Burisma impeding him. These are draws which have actually started to pull certain voters from Biden.

I say 'certain' voters, because while Buttigieg may be marketable in the Midwest or to coastal donors, he has an absolutely abysmal relationship with black voters due to his handling of law enforcement in South Bend. Barring some sort of unlikely turnaround, this alone is enough to ensure he won't get the nomination.

In terms of balancing the ledger, this may ultimately do more to hurt centrist chances.

Unfortunately I think Buttigieg’s ultimate electability is... well, to cut to the quick, hampered by him being gay. Which is an awful reality, but something that might be a major point of contention within the minds of religious voters; even amongst minorities who would otherwise never have voted for trump.

Judging him over his sexuality is unfair, entirely immaterial to his ability to lead, and it’s hypocritical for any number of reasons, absolutely. But sadly it could be the deciding factor for a lot of undecided voters, and something I’m sure trump and co. are eager to start stoking people’s irrational fears over and start levying “suggestive” barbs about in regards to his sexuality.

[Benggaul]

Unfortunately I think Buttigieg’s ultimate electability is... well, to cut to the quick, hampered by him being gay. Which is an awful reality, but something that might be a major point of contention within the minds of religious voters; even amongst minorities who would otherwise never have voted for trump.

Judging him over his sexuality is unfair, entirely immaterial to his ability to lead, and it’s hypocritical for any number of reasons, absolutely. But sadly it could be the deciding factor for a lot of undecided voters, and something I’m sure trump and co. are eager to start stoking people’s irrational fears over and start levying “suggestive” barbs about in regards to his sexuality.

This is my take on it as well. I will 100% vote for him if he wins the primary, but I KNOW homophobia and "muh religion" runs too deep in the US still to give him a fair shot at the White House. Granted this is likely the best shot he'll have in decades given that the alternative is 4 more years of political cancer, but then Americans have a longstanding tradition of voting against their best interests.

[Dextroden]

Well, at least people are being more honest about homophobia being an all community problem instead of just white people.

But I will laugh at people who think a gay man can't be president when Obama had staggering victories. Plus, shouldn't all that white male privilege carry him to victory?

[CostinR]

This is my take on it as well. I will 100% vote for him if he wins the primary, but I KNOW homophobia and "muh religion" runs too deep in the US still to give him a fair shot at the White House. Granted this is likely the best shot he'll have in decades given that the alternative is 4 more years of political cancer, but then Americans have a longstanding tradition of voting against their best interests.

People are going to rightly ask, beyond any issue of him being gay and how voters will tackle that, what business does this 37 year old have to run the United States when he's only run a medium sized city?

The answer, he has none. Trump spent many years building a reputation across the US as a successful businessman, thank the Apprentice but not just that.